and might have overestimated their level
of embeddedness. However, statistical
analysis shows significant differences
between PMOs; for example, PMOs deal­
ing with business process projects post
a lower level of embeddedness than the
three others.

Globally, the three perspectives
on performance in relation to PMOs
contribute to the specification of such
entities based on the types of projects
they deal with. Results for business pro­
cess projects and new product/service
development projects show the most
pronounced differences for project
management performance and embed­
dedness factors.

Discussion: Proposed PMOCategorization Based onProject Types

PMO Categorization within
Organization and Management Theory
There have been several attempts by
scholars (Hobbs & Aubry, 2008, 2011),
professionals (i.e., Kendall & Rollins,
2003), or professional bodies in proj­
ect management (Office of Government
Commerce, 2008; Project Management
Institute, 2013) to categorize PMOs, yet
none of the resulting classification sys­
tem seems to be fully satisfactory for
any one group. This quest for classifica­
tion is understandable given the wide
variety of PMOs and the difficulty for
managers to decide on the mandate of
one or multiple PMOs. Will this catego­
rization of PMOs in the public sector
address some of the expectations?

From the theoretical aspect of thisresearch, this article’s initial contribu­tion is to relate the PMO with organi­zation and management theory. First,we have positioned decisions regard­ing the implementation and evolutionof PMOs in the wider field of organiza­tional design. This is an important point,because research on this phenomenonhas adopted a narrow view of describ­ing the PMO rather than focusing onthe organizing process of creating aPMO. The categories of PMOs based onthe final product they deliver shouldcontribute to making a PMO designdecision. For example, PMOs dealingwith engineering and construction proj­ects may require less effort from themanagers in governance and control­ling projects because they already havestrong project management practicesin place. Conversely, PMOs with busi­ness processes and new product devel­opment will require, first, training inbasic project management and coachingand implementation of new monitoringand control mechanisms. Second, wehave situated our research in the lin­eage of contingency theory. Contingencytheory has been criticized to confineorganizations in fixed and limited typesor configurations not adapted to facingthe current complexities and uncertain­ties in an economic context (Fenton &Pettigrew, 2000; Hernes, 2014). Contin­gency theory, however, has evolved andoffers the potential to take care of theorganization environment (Donaldson,2001; Greenwood & Miller, 2010). Ourfindings show that different types of proj­ects have an effect on the PMO context:As Tables 4 through 7 demonstrate, thereare several different characteristics ineach of the four components of the con­ceptual framework, depending on thetypes of projects the PMO is dealing with.

Knowing more about the strengths
and weaknesses associated with differ­
ent types of PMOs creates an opportu­
nity for learning between PMOs (Aubry,
Müller, & Glücker, 2012). For example,
PMOs that deal with business processes
or new product development projects
are strong in managing the satisfaction
of stakeholders and the project, whereas
this is lacking in engineering and IS/IT
projects. Learning can be done in very
dynamic ways, including communities
of practices between PMOs (Williams,
2008). Moreover, mixing different types of
groups may produce unexpected creativ­
ity through the recombination of differ­
ent routines (Cohendet & Simon, 2016).

PMOs and Organizational Design

This research provides empirical evi­dence of the interest in organizationaldesign to counteract the three reasonsprovided by Greenwood and Miller(2010), which explain the lack of interestin organizational design. First, the unit ofanalysis of this research is at the organi­zational level rather than the populationor community level. Second, a govern­ment organization is clearly a complexsystem that faces a number of difficultiesin trying to put organizational projectmanagement into place. A multi­methodmethodology would be required to cap­ture such complexity. In this particularcase in public administration, a variety ofactions have been undertaken, includingthis quantitative research, which made apartial contribution only. That said, thispiece of research provides a picture of thesituation by showing explicitly: ( 1) who isinvolved in managing multiple projectsthroughout the government apparatus;( 2) what they are doing; and ( 3) howsensitive they are to project manage­ment performance. Third, the focus ofthis research is on the overall entities inthe government that deal with multipleprojects; it avoids a narrow view cen­tered on any one part in particular to thedetriment of the overall organizationaldesign. In proposing a categorization ofPMOs in the public sector, this article’smain contribution to the academic fieldis to further the knowledge about orga­nizational design. It also demonstrates,among other scholars, that project man­agement research can contribute signifi­cantly to the management field.

From a methodological point of
view, the article also illustrates an aca­
demic contribution to elucidating a
complex situation. Within the limit of
a quantitative methodology, this article
is very much aligned with the reflection
undertaken by the project management
scholars striving to introduce our meth­
odological approaches to translational
and transformational approaches (e.g.,
Drouin et al., 2013).

Conclusion

This article presents the results of
researchers who have seized an oppor­
tunity to closely participate in a process